Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-03-30
WHY THE AMENDMENTS SHOULD
BE ADOPTED,

The constitutional judicial amendments
will probably be adopted, as they should
be- for they are promotive of good gov
ernment. But the friends of the measures
should not rest content with the belief
that they will prevail. Over-confdence
breeds neglect, that results very often in
defeat. There is some opposition to the
amendments. II springs from the source
that manifests contrarityOf spirit to nearly
all things that proceed from any other than
itself. 1t is the same spirit that looks
upon success with envy, upon government
as oppression, upon taxation as a burden
and recompense for talent as properly
measured only by the wage of day
laborer. From this influence some votes
will be projected against the advance step
the amendments propose We believe that
if the press will, in the very few days be-
tween this and the 18th Of April, dispas-
sionately discuss the amendments, great
deal of misapprehension concerning them
will be removed.
It is only needed that the people shall
be fully informed of the defects of our
present system, and how it is proposed to
reform it, to secure the requisite vote for
their adoption. 1t is gratifying to note
that the trade and industrial journals are
giving their support to the amendments.
They find that they propose true economy
and will subserve justice, speedy settlement
of litigation, and higher intelligence in
our judicial system. Thus we find the
Mining and Industrial Adu0cate in recent
number strongly favoring the measures.
That journal very clearly presents the
forcible and conclusive reasons why the
amendments should be adopted. 1t points
out that Amendment No gives to the
Justices the selection of their presiding
Justice. Surely this is wise; it is pro-
motive of harmony, and renders it i'm
probable that junior inferior lawyer fresh
from the bar, by political within or drift,
will ever be placed above senior and ex-
perienced Judges.
1t proposes to give the Supreme Court
the aid of the present Court Commission
by making it a judicial instead of cleri-
cal department. This is to continue for
four years, but may be extended for a
further term if the people, by their Legis-
lature, shall deem it necessary. The
Adrooate points out that the Court is now
two and half years behind its business,
with no hope of oyertaking it, however dill
igently it may labor. Hasty decisions can
not for a moment he countenanced; the
rights of persons or property are at stake
in every decision in this tribunal of last
resort, and there must be study and DELHI
Grafton in each case, unless we propose to
wreck the Judicial system by haste and
thus unsettle the law aud create such CON
fusion as will render titles doubtful and
personal rights unstable.
The Adrocate makes an excellent point
when it calls attention to the fact that,
under the present system, presentation of
case to the Court and the rendition of
an opinion by the Commission takes in on
the appearance of one set of men deciding
a case that has been heard and considered
by distinct body. 1t makes no difference
that the Court sends some cases to the
Commission first; it must still review the
decision of the latter, and, if it cannot
concur, then all the work of the supple
mental body is lost Under the proposed
change the Commission will be depart
ment, and hear and decide appeals as do
other departments.
Concerning another proposed change the
Adrocatc says:
Under the Constitution as it is the Court may
divide into two departments of three Judges
each. This was designed 10 give it double
working capacity. But unfortunately the Dres-
ent Constitution requires the concurrence of
the three Judges in q department to render
judgment. If one dissents there is mis-trial
sud the case has necessarily to go into the
Court In bank and be heard all over again.
The result is easily seen. After case has been
argued in department and eiaborately eonsid-
cred by the three Justices, and perhaps an opin-
Ion written by one of them on which great
deal of thought and time have been expended
If one Justice dsagrees. all that is mostly clear
loss Now. the amendment provides that
while three Justices must be present at the
argument, two may render a Judgment. That
ends the case, unless the Court in bank orders
It reheard The bare statement of the scope of
the amendment is enough to recommend il to
the voters of the State. The Court is so much
behind that the delay in rendering Judgment
amounts TO denial of justice in many cases
Pass this amendment aud the Supreme Court
Will pc able TO clear its docket and keep even
with its business.
Another important amendment is that
which gives the power to fill vacancy for
the unexpired term instead of until the
next general election No lawyer in good
practice will abandon it and let his bust
ness pass into the hands of Others, probably
not TO be recalled, for few months upon
the bench. If the Executive should APP
point TO vacancy at all, let it be for the
remainder of the term, in order to secure
tie highest ability for the place. The
idea that it dangerously enlarges the
power Of the Governor is fallacious. If
that officer is competent to select Justice
fit to serve a few months or weeks, he is
competent to select a person to serve a
longer period. 1t enlarges his power, it is
true, so far as length of term is concerned,
but it enlarges at the same time the field
and number from which he may choose,
and thus broadens the probability of ftly
filling the vacancy and conserving the
public good.
The provision for the removal of JUS
tice who becomes disqualified is an abso-
lutte necessity. As the law now stands,
the possibility exists of one person filling
a place upon the bench who by physical
ailment, mental decline ard intellectual